SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

Manoj Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
The State Bank Of India and Ors – Respondent
CWJC 8381/2014



Advocates:
['Kundan Kumar Sinha', '', 'Aditya Narain Singh', 'Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8381 of 2014

===========================================================

1. Manoj Kumar Pandey son of late Ramjit Pandey resident of village - Nagri,

Police Station - Charpokhari, District - Bhojpur (Ara)

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Bank of India through the Chairman State Bank of India, Corporate

Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai

2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West

Gandhi Maidan, Patna

3. The Deputy General Manager ( B & O ) Cum Appellate Authority State Bank of

India Zonal Office, J.C. Road, Patna

4. The Regional Manager - cum - Disciplinary Authority - cum - Appointing

Authority, Region - II, Administrative Office, State Bank of India, J.C. Road, Patna

.... .... Respondent/s

===========================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, advocate

===========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 24-08-2017

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has challenged the order

dated 18.06.2013, as contained in memo No. 175 (Annexure-12) issued by the

Regional Manager, Region-II, Patna by which the petitioner has been removed

from service with superannuation benefits. The petitioner has further challenged

the order dated 18.10.2013 contained in letter DGM (B&O)/P/DPS/ 04

(Annexure-14) passed by the appellate authority whereby the appellate authority

confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from service by dismissing his

appeal.

3. The relevant facts which got bearing in this case are that the

petitioner applied for appointment on the clerical post in the State Bank of India

on 14.08.2009, in pursuance of advertisement issued on 31.07.2009. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.8381 of 2014 dt.24-08-2017

2/11

petitioner filled up the form and appeared in written test on 22.11.2009. After

written test and subsequent interview the final result was published in the month

of October, 2010. The petitioner was appointed in the State Bank of India as

Assistant on 15.12.2010 and he was posted at Danapur branch. On being

transferred from Danapur the petitioner joined the administrative office of

Region-II, State Bank of India, Patna on 30.12.2011. The petitioner received letter

dated 19.05.2012, on the basis of complaint received from Central Bank of India,

informing the State Bank of India that the petitioner left the service of Central

Bank of India without being relieved from Central Bank of India and while the

petitioner was posted at Narayanpur Bhauli branch, Bagaha, West Champaran he

was involved in a fraud of Rs. 1.79 crores in borrowal account during the period

March, 2010 to September, 2010 and the Central Bank of India has lodged case in

the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is alleged that petitioner at the time of

joining in the State Bank of India concealed this fact and gave false affidavit

declaring that after retirement from Indian Air Force the petitioner did not serve

or get employment anywhere except the State Bank of India whereas he has

already availed the benefit of ex- service man, while joining in the Central Bank

of India, and thereby he was ineligible for the same benefit again. The petitioner

submitted his explanation on 30.05.2012 pleading his innocence. The petitioner

stated that he hurriedly submitted affidavit as per format given by the State Bank

of India officials and he did not go through the entire contents carefully. He did

not conceal anything deliberately. If any fact is concealed that is unintentional.

The petitioner was served with articles of charge containing four charges. The

enquiry officer found thre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top